The Attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya Was an Act of Jihad, Not Anger

            There has been considerable controversy about whether the attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans, like the violent protests targeting U.S. embassies in other Muslim states, was a terrorist attack or a spontaneous protest sparked by anger about an anti-Islamic movie made by a resident of the United States.  At first, the Obama Administration denied that it was a terrorist attack, insisting it was a spontaneous result of anger, only now to admit that it was.

            As an attack on a diplomatic facility – a government building – and on the government employees therein, it was not an attack on innocent civilians, meaning civilians as opposed to official policymakers.  Although the attack could terrorize innocent American civilians from visiting such facilities, it did not terrorize most Americans.  Therefore, the attack was not a terrorist attack, but was a violent act of Jihad (Islamic holy war) by militant Islamists.  Indeed, it was an act of war against the U.S.  

            I have striven through numerous posts to this blog to distinguish between the evils of militant attacks and the worse evil of terrorism, the targeting of innocent civilians in order to intimidate the populace into giving into the demands of the terrorists, in order to avoid a dilution of the word terrorism and to treat the threat from terrorists even more harshly than from other militants.

            But the point is that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was not a spontaneous protest by ordinary Libyans angry about an anti-Islamic movie that insults Mohammed.  It was planned by Islamists like al-Qaeda.  The anti-Islamic video was an excuse for anti-American violence, not the cause.  The cause was Islamism.  The timing was September 11, the anniversary of al-Qaeda’s worst terrorist attacks.  Even al-Qaeda’s claimed retaliation for the killing of the terrorist organization’s second in command was an excuse.

            The Ambassador was loved by the Libyan people, some of whom tried to save his life.  He had served in the Middle East with the Peace Corps and Foreign Service, even traveling to Libya during the Civil War to establish relations with the rebels fighting to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi with Western assistance.  An American government official liked by a Muslim population is intolerable for Islamists.

            The Obama Administration appeared more concerned about the feelings of Muslims, before, during and after the attack, than security at American diplomatic facilities.  Adequate security might have prevented the attack or at least ameliorated it.  It is also true that President Barack Obama’s policy of engagement with Muslims, which Islamists interpret as weakness, failed to deter the attack in the first place.  However, just as the anti-Islamic moviemaker did not cause the jihadist attack, neither did Obama’s policies.  Militant Muslims engaged in Jihad did.  The point is similar to placing the blame on the September 11 Attacks on the terrorists who committed them and not on Americans (e.g. because of President Bill Clinton’s repeated failures to respond adequately to terrorism, inadequate airline safety, intelligence failures, etc.) who, although they made unintentional errors, were unable to prevent them.  A larger trend in the United States in recent decades – one that conservatives should be especially mindful to avoid – of an increasing inability to recognize the sole responsibility of individuals for their own actions is discernable here.

Nevertheless, the attack reminds American people that the threat from terrorism targeting Americans, including from al-Qaeda, remains, despite the death of Osama bin Laden.